Man Pays For Escort, Sues For Subsequent Threat Of Arrest

Ugh it is like, sooo annoying when you pay a prostitute to have sex and then you get arrested and it’s very upsetting and so you have to sue! A tourist in Las Vegas claims he was traumatized after police threatened him with arrest post-prostitute coitus in his hotel room.

The nerve of officials to arrest someone who has apparently committed an illegal act! Sarcasm entirely ours. The tourist from New York City filed a lawsuit against Las Vegas Exclusive Personals saying claiming various hilarious things, theLas Vegas Sun reports.

The college student gave an interview saying he was staying at the Stratosphere on Dec. 17, when a stripper he ordered from LVEP showed up to his room to dance. He claims he paid her $155 to strip and do a lap dance, and then $120 to perform a sex act. Blackman says he called LVEP the next morning and said the woman he hired didn’t stay for a whole hour, and only stuck around for a half hour.

He couldn’t make an informed agreement with the stripper, however as he says he was drunk. This was all revealed when the fella, upset at not getting a refund, contacted Metro Place. They told him, guess what? You should probably be arrested.

Somehow this guy evaded arrest, came home to NYC and filed suit in federal court, charging “An escort did an illegal sexual act on me during her paid service to me” and “I almost had gotten arrested.”

There is so much more fun stuff going on here, including claims of needing medical treatment for a mental condition resulting from the incident and a requested $1.8 million in damages, but for now we’re just going to say, dude, you hired a prostitute. And told police about it. Come on!

This actually happened to a police officer I know. She gets a call to take a theft report. The theft was being cheated on a drug deal. The idiot in question announced this as he pulled the bag of narcotics out of his pocket to demonstrate that it was obviously not the weight paid for.

He went to jail. I really hope the state would be willing to pay for a vasectomy before this guy breeds.

The government expects that drug dealers pay income taxes, so it’s not that strange that customers would expect police protection. By refusing the police are basically encouraging you settle the issue with a gun battle. More overtime for them!

Yeah, its almost like private colleges have a motivation to enroll of lots of students without caring about actually educating said students.
“Wait, you mean if they don’t graduate in four years, we can charge them for additional years and hold them hostage with the credits that don’t transfer anywhere else?”

Admission’s standards are terribly low and it’s not just private colleges. Many public colleges were forced to lower their admission’s standards back in the late 70s and early 80s for a few reasons and we are seeing the effects of that today. In turn, to compete, private colleges were forced into the same situation. Now we have a situation where a college education is viewed as a right and not a privilege.

(1) Affirmative action, a good idea manged poorly, forced admission’s standards down. Instead of forcing minority secondary-schools to raise academic standards for the benefit of the students who deserved and wanted to be held to higher standards, colleges were forced to lower standards to allow those students in. This was great for the motivated but under educated student, but now, huge numbers are using the lower standards to get into school and qualify for huge amounts of federal and state aid and private loans, much of which ends up in their pockets.

(2) College admissions were dropping off and many schools were on the verge of closing. More schools, private and public, closed than at any other time in our history in the early 80s. In an effort to stay open, many schools simply lowered their standards to increase enrollment. Now because of the huge revenues, they are keeping them lower.

(3) With the large numbers of on-line and private, for-profit schools opening in the last 20 years, traditional schools have been forced to lower already miserably low standards in order to compete for federal funding which is being drawn away by these schools which are often nothing more than diploma mills.

So, after this long explanation, yes, colleges are letting some real morons through their doors.

No no no. This is actually an interesting legal argument, albeit a kind of stupid common sense argument. If one can’t consent to other sex acts while drunk (think date rape cases or frat house cases.. basically, think pretty white girl if that will help lol), then why can someone consent to a sex act with a prostitute while drunk? If the escort was pushing a sale of her… enhanced services… and taking advantage of his physical state, shouldn’t that be on her? Now, this might be highly unlikely and very difficult to prove (it’s more likely that he was the one pushing the idea), but it’s an interesting legal argument nonetheless that follows pretty well from our other consent laws.

It WOULD be an interesting legal case if it weren’t for the troubling aspect of what drove him to contact police: “He said that the next morning, he called Las Vegas Exclusive Personals to demand his money back, saying he was dissatisfied because the entertainer didn’t stay for the promised one hour and left after a half hour.” THIS is his chief complaint. Not that he was sexually assaulted & robbed in the process.

Furthermore your comment about “think date rape cases or frat house cases.. basically, think pretty white girl if that will help lol” is deeply offensive to rape victims, because it assumes regret after consentual sex, rather than a woman being taken advantage of, which is actually rape. So thanks for contributing to the rape culture.

“because it assumes regret after consentual sex, “
No, it assumes consent was not freely given- that coercion was involved. It can be coercion in the form of substances that impair judgment, or environments with create a lot of social pressure, and so on, but coercion nonetheless. Please, read the comments you’re replying to. In the majority of rape cases, the accused is not a stranger to the victim.

I certainly DID read the comment I was responding to. It seems you didn’t read or understand mine.

The point of the 2nd half of my comment was that the writer of this text: “think pretty white girl if that will help lol” is exactly the kind of person who has a wink-wink, nudge-nudge attitude about date rape. This kind of thinking promotes the whole she was drunk and asking for it, UNLESS she’s a virginal white girl worthy of “protection” from “date rape cases or frat house cases”.

WOW. That was not it at all. I was making a snide comment concerning the theory that people don’t care as much about rape or kidnapping or whatever unless the victim is a pretty white girl (don’t say you’ve never heard this theory). The whole argument I presented was actually exactly the opposite of what you divined out of it. If we care about questions concerning when a woman can freely consent to sexual activity, we should care about when men can, too. We don’t protect just one subset of people, even if they paid for a stripper. My comment was in response to someone saying that intoxication didn’t have any legal effect, but if someone thinks about date rape cases, they’ll realize that idea is ridiculous. Of course it has legal effect.

Actually you can consent to a sex act while drunk. In date rape and other cases of the sort it is not the drunkenness that obviates consent, it is forced drunkenness or drunkenness to the verge of unconsciousness if not complete unconsciousness. A person who is intentionally buzzed, conscious and reasonably coherent can well consent.

I don’t think you have any idea what you are talking about. A drunk person can’t give informed consent, regardless of who supplied the alcohol to them, and you don’t have to be borderline unconscious to be date raped.

I think that would change a very large percentage of sex into rape. People often get a little buzzed at clubs in order to lower their inhibitions. They then go out and have sex with people. So now picking someone up at a club is raping them? What if they’re both drunk or tipsy? Does the rape charge only come from the one who has the penis?

This is a very difficult area of law and incredibly hard to prove. Since criminal trials can often be decided by juries, the actual standard varies a lot. It’s quite hard to always walk the line between convicting people who are legitimately taking advantage of someone who was unable to consent and not convicting those who were accused just because of regrets or other motive. Knowing that it’s difficult is different than it being absurd. Just like we shouldn’t convict all club-goers-turned-sex-havers because someone can actually commit the crime of date rape, we shouldn’t let actual date rapists go because someone can go to a club, drink, and then consent. It’s not absurd. It’s difficult. The “all or nothing” attitude is absurd.

Which is why the ENTIRE legal system is slanted toward doing so. Including this area. See the whole “incredibly hard to prove” line. It’s unfortunate that there is no human system that can always perfectly divine the truth, but this is a problem the legal system is very familiar with. As soon as you propose a better idea, we’ll go with that.

Farleyboy007, I DID NOT WRITE THAT!!!! I wrote that simply being drunk does not prevent a person from being legally able to give consent because intoxication is rarely, if ever an excuse for a criminal action it cannot be an excuse to make a criminal accusation.

A person being mildly intoxicated can very well give consent and that consent will most likely not be withdrawn by the courts because the victim made a poor decision and regrets it. As a matter of fact, UNFORTUNATELY, the victim’s intoxication has been used as a defense where DNA, the accused’s admission to the act, or witness testimony is lacking because the victim’s claims of blackouts have been manipulated, maybe correctly maybe not, to raise doubt as to whether she knows who the rapist actually was.

READ! In a CRIMINAL case where CONSENT WAS GIVEN AND LATER WITHDRAWN and a CLAIM OF INTOXICATION is made, most courts are going to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE INTOXICATION AND/OR THE LEVEL OF INTOXICATION. By your logic, and this is exactly the logic virtually every court has shot down, if intoxication prevents a person from giving consent, then it is also a defense for the rape itself. So, the courts tread very carefully when allowing victim’s intoxication as a cause of action in criminal cases. Victim’s intoxication is often used as a defense claiming it was a contributing factor to the crime.

When a court views a date rape case WHERE CONSENT IS ADMITTED BY THE VICTIM AND THEN WITHDRAWN, it looks to the actions of the victim prior to giving the consent in order to determine if the the person was still in control of his or her actions. Yes! Males get raped! Both by men and women.

if the court can determine the ACCUSED GOT THE VICTIM INVOLUNTARILY INTOXICATED FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING CONSENT or if it is determined the victim was SELECTED BY THE DEFENDANT(S) BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER OVERLY INTOXICATED CONDITION, then consent is WITHDRAWN. If a person simply has a few drinks and GETS A LITTLE DRUNK AND MAKES A POOR DECISION, the courts are going to say it wasn’t rape. However, this is not the case with minors. Minors are not legally able to give consent in the first place.

On the other hand, in a CIVIL case, and yes a rapist can be sued as well as prosecuted, the burden of proof is substantially lower than it is in a criminal case. So yes, in a Civil SUIT, simple intoxication may well be sufficient for consent to be withdrawn.

So, READ and EVALUATE what you have read before making comments about a person’s errors and don’t believe everything you see on TV or hear through the grapevine.

This is where someone says: “Prostitution is not a victimless crime, half of them are victims of human trafficking”. Let me just get ahead of that and point out that human trafficking is and should always stay illegal. Prostitution has a human trafficking relationship specifically because it remains illegal. I assure you that if prostitution was legal the lives of all those women would be vastly improved. There would no longer be a shortage of women who would engage in legal and safe prostitution now that it would elevated off the streets and out of the underworld. There would no longer be a need for pimps as they could just use lawyers like the rest of us to settle disputes.

It’s funny, if he had been outside the Las Vegas city limits, he might have a serious case for breach of contract since prostitution is only illegal in Las Vegas, not in Nevada as a whole. If he had been out outside the city limits, then she would have skipped out before his paid-for hour was complete.

A lot of people see those flyers for escorts and forget they have to leave Las Vegas to legally buy a hooker.

I was wondering about this. I know its legal outside of Vegas, but I think many people incorrectly assume it is legal in Vegas. I wonder if that ever works as a defense if somebody gets busted. I know ignorance of the law is no excuse, but anecdotelly, I think the mistake may be common enough where exceptions sometimes get made.

I don’t think it helps the college student in the article, or course, but maybe for the guy who says, “isn’t the Bunny Ranch in Vegas?”

So, he’s saying she broke an oral contract? Well, sonny, you can put it in the hands of your attorney, but you’ll never make it stand up in court. Wait? He filed without an attorney? I guess he’s taken the matter into his own hands.
So, he’s suing because he could’t last. Nice job, Minute Man!

” I also would like to get my $275 payment back and a $1.8 million verdict for the tragic event that happened.”
I can’t remember the last time I had an orgasm that I would classify as a “tragic event”?? WTF.

I think it’s awesome that we ignore lawsuits meaningful lawsuits in favor of those that are silly and frivolous. It makes sure that people don’t seek to protect their rights in a court of law for fear of being cast into the same lot as those like in the story here.

The crime he was threatened with arrest for is irrelevant. Frivolous lawsuits like this can only be avoided by decriminalizing all arrestable offenses or criminalizing frivolous lawsuits. Call me an archaic square, but I would prefer the latter.

Who decides what is frivolous? I have an idea: we could select a panel of citizens and let them decide by hearing arguments presented presented by both parties. That way we won’t have to have any lawsuits …what a minute…

…in this case specifically, all I can think of is “WTF is this guy thinking?”

In general, can we please get over the whole social problem with prostitution and just drop all laws making it illegal already? We seriously need to get over this as a society, and have properly-regulated sex businesses as there are in the rest of NV. Would stop a hell of a lot of crime and protect a hell of a lot of women otherwise at the mercy of their pimps and johns.

I worked mall security while going to college. Well a guy wanted me to come with him to where he was robbed and call the cops. He brought me to the food court dumpster. I asked what they stole from him. Guess what was stolen……. remember he wanted to report it to the cops……

I don’t know why y’all are harping on the OP for being stupid. His MO makes perfect sense to me. Lots of people have made huge amounts of money from suing McDonalds and Starbucks for spilling hot coffee on themselves. Why not make a pretty penny from suing an “escort” service for not performing an illegal service that was paid for.

Farleyboy007, I DID NOT WRITE THAT!!!! I wrote that simply being drunk does not prevent a person from being legally able to give consent because intoxication is rarely, if ever an excuse for a criminal action it cannot be an excuse to make a criminal accusation.

A person being mildly intoxicated can very well give consent and that consent will most likely not be withdrawn by the courts because the victim made a poor decision and regrets it. As a matter of fact, UNFORTUNATELY, the victim’s intoxication has been used as a defense where DNA, the accused’s admission to the act, or witness testimony is lacking because the victim’s claims of blackouts have been manipulated, maybe correctly maybe not, to raise doubt as to whether she knows who the rapist actually was.

READ! In a CRIMINAL case where CONSENT WAS GIVEN AND LATER WITHDRAWN and a CLAIM OF INTOXICATION is made, most courts are going to look at the CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE INTOXICATION AND/OR THE LEVEL OF INTOXICATION. By your logic, and this is exactly the logic virtually every court has shot down, if intoxication prevents a person from giving consent, then it is also a defense for the rape itself. So, the courts tread very carefully when allowing victim’s intoxication as a cause of action in criminal cases. Victim’s intoxication is often used as a defense claiming it was a contributing factor to the crime.

When a court views a date rape case WHERE CONSENT IS ADMITTED BY THE VICTIM AND THEN WITHDRAWN, it looks to the actions of the victim prior to giving the consent in order to determine if the the person was still in control of his or her actions. Yes! Males get raped! Both by men and women.

if the court can determine the ACCUSED GOT THE VICTIM INVOLUNTARILY INTOXICATED FOR PURPOSES OF OBTAINING CONSENT or if it is determined the victim was SELECTED BY THE DEFENDANT(S) BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER OVERLY INTOXICATED CONDITION, then consent is WITHDRAWN. If a person simply has a few drinks and GETS A LITTLE DRUNK AND MAKES A POOR DECISION, the courts are going to say it wasn’t rape. However, this is not the case with minors. Minors are not legally able to give consent in the first place.

On the other hand, in a CIVIL case, and yes a rapist can be sued as well as prosecuted, the burden of proof is substantially lower than it is in a criminal case. So yes, in a Civil SUIT, simple intoxication may well be sufficient for consent to be withdrawn.

So, READ and EVALUATE what you have read before making comments about a person’s errors and don’t believe everything you see on TV or hear through the grapevine.